• Osman Asıcıoglu, Kemal Gungorduk, Berhan Besımoglu Asıcıoglu, Gokhan Yıldırım, Ozgu Celıkkol Gungorduk, and Cemal Ark.
• Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sisli Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
• Am J Perinatol. 2014 Nov 1; 31 (10): 837-44.

ObjectiveThis study compared two methods of expanding the uterine incision at the time of cesarean delivery, which is associated with the risk of unintended extension.Study DesignThis randomized trial included 1,076 women who underwent elective cesarean delivery. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of unintended extension related to the method used for expanding the uterine incision.ResultsParticipants in both groups (blunt vs. sharp) had similar demographic and clinical characteristics. The incidence of unintended extension (8.8% vs. 4.8%; p = 0.009), mean estimated blood loss (853.67 ± 42 mL vs. 664.80 ± 38 mL; p = 0.001), and blood loss >1000 mL (11.4% vs. 6.8%; p = 0.009) was significantly higher in the sharp group compared with the blunt group. No difference in transfusions (7.5% vs. 6.3%; p = 0.440) or the need for additional supertonic agents (16% vs. 12.9%; p = 0.144) was noted.ConclusionSharp expansion of the uterine incision was related to a higher risk of unintended extension and maternal blood loss. Because blunt expansion is associated with a lower risk for unintended extension and maternal blood loss, it should be the first option during elective cesarean delivery.Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

16 keywords...

hide…